Anime J ournalism -Past and present · Gakken Publish-ing and Tokuma Shoten. respectively. Every ... of merchandise from Yamato and another pictorially chronicI ing the stages of

明治大学教養論集通巻490号

(2013・1)pp.15H65

“Anime J ournalism" -Past and present

Renato RIVERA RUSCA

Introduction

This paper intends to investigate the evolution of the role of “jour-

nalism" within the framework of the Japanese animation industry. In

doing so， it is hoped that one can appreciate the shifting of the status

quo within the industry and its relationship with the outside society -

thus giving us a new perspective from which to fill in several points yet

needed to plot the history of Japanese animation and its relevance

within society.

Today， the role of“journalism". that is to say. reporting on the lat-

est developments in the fields of Japan巴seanimation is still done

through the traditional print media outlets. namely magazines such as

N ewtype. Animedia and Animage.

To very simply set up a base for the analysis to follow. it should be

pointed out at this stage that these three flagship magazines belong to

large corporate publishers. namely Kadokawa Shoten. Gakken Publish-

ing and Tokuma Shoten. respectively. Every month， these magazines

bring young readers the latest news. interviews and “scoops" from the

world of animation. The way this works is due to the PR departments

of animation production companies having close relations with these

publishers. thus negotiating the precise timing for the release of certain

information pertaining to up-and-coming works and episodes of current

shows.

But in recent years there has been a stark contrast visible when

compared to the previous decades in terms of the nature of these rela-

tionships.

152 明治大学教養論集通巻490号 (2013・1)

The 1970s and the birth of the “Anime magazine" :

It can be Cand often is) argued that the very first anime magazine

from conception was “Animage"， which began publication in July 1978.

It is te1ling that the first issue featured $ραce Cruiser y，αmato on the

cover - the reason being that this was the show which launched the

first “anime boom" in Japan， and thus was the very impetus for the

opening of the floodgates to an entire genre of such magazines which

began to appear in a very short space of time.

As Fred Patten very concis巴ly，yet in rather great detail， described，

the remainder of the main fleet of anime magazines， Animec， My Anime，

The Anime and Anim巴dia，followed soon after'.

It should be noted that prior to this， another magazine was already

in circulation， known as“Gekkan Out"， which would be known as a

proper anime magazine later. At first，“Out" was more of a general sci-

ence-fiction fandom magazine， with its readership consisting of fans of

subcultures such as tokusatsu and Hollywood B-movies， as well as other

themes such as the occult.“Out" first showed signs of its interest in the

animation medium as early as its second issue， when it featured a full

sixty-page special feature on - again - Spαce Cruiser Yamato. The

feature was put together mostly by a group of amateurs: among them，

the now-prolific anime critic Ryusuke Hikawa.

The pieces leading to this event were coming together in the year

before， with avant-garde subculture art magazine “Fantoche" featuring

its own reports on animation works， and an offshoot publication of

“Manga Shonen" C which， while being a vehicle for serialized manga

stories， also had regular articles on currently airing TV anime)， entitled

“TV anime no sekai" (“The world of TV anime"). Fantoche featured

Starsha from Yamαto on its cover in issue 2 in April 1976， while “TV

anim巴nosekai" -one of the very first “mooks"， that is， mixture of book

and magazine， as it was essentially a special feature which would nor-

mally run in the pages of a serial magazine but had been released as its

own independent volume -has a breakdown of the prominent shows

“Anime lournalism" -Past and present 153

of the time， with， again， Yamato being headlined.

The Out special feature could， then， be known as the first real ma-

ture， critical evaluation of a specific anime work in the world of profes-

sional serialized publications. In many ways， it can be considered an

evolution of the established fan pubIished materials that had been car-

ried out independently until that point -not Ieast in the sense that the

very writers and editors of the piece were already staffing their own

fanzines themselves and thus represented the very core of the fandom，

in essence establishing their authority officially for the first time， and

for the nation to see. Becaus巴ofthis， it is an extremely important event

in the history of w ha t 1 shall call “anime iournalism" and its develop-

ment and evolution throughout the subsequent decades.

Taking a look at the feature in question， one can see that after a

brief set of two-colour glossy page sections， one showcasing a collection

of merchandise from Yamato and another pictorially chronicIing the

stages of the production process itself from the planning， through

scripting， to cel and background painting to photography and such， the

stock paper articIe begins proper with a rather personal introduction

from the writer.

The writer describes the following feature as an effort to try to

dispeI the concept of “modern" anime as being too confusing for the

more mature generation， those who grew up not with anime but with

“terebi manga"， as it was known in the days of Tetsujin 28・gou，Tetsuωαn

Atomu and 8-Man， and were accustomed to self-contained episodic sto-

ryteIling for children. Immediately， reading this in 2012， one can fe巴1a

division in audiences - yiαmato was a break with the hitherto children-

oriented hero stories of the time， and could reinvigorate the imagination

of the chiIdren of the 1960s who had already grown out of animation as

immature entertainment by the Iate 1970s. The articIe therefore was

decIaring the necessity for an outlet for discourse on the themes this

work brought up.


The 1980s and the emergence of fans as creators， editors

As we have seen， Hikawa and others like him started off in fan

circles chronicling and cataloguing every minute detail of production，

which gradually got the attention of editors and producers so that in-

formation became shared amongst all parties almost equally， and a com-

munity spirit was born. For the ever-growing fans of animation，

directly visiting the production houses increasingly seemed like a com-

mon route towards entering this community， and often the studios

would we1come fans to look around freely.

During this time，“anime journalism"， or， the practice of reporting

new developments in the industry and analyzing and critiquing anime

works and trends， was a large role that these magazines played， and

understandably some more academically than others.

Here are some of the more exemplary features in the pages of such

magazines， to paint an overall image of what “anime journalism" en-

tailed during the early 1980s.

• Animec Vol. 20: What is SF anime?'

• Animec Vol. 31: a feature written exclusively by readers of the

magazine: Interview with Ishiguro and Machizaki conducted by

young fans of the show， who were readers of the magazine.3

• Animec， Octo ber 1984:“What is an animation production studio?"-

A 21-page feature， complete with staff interviews， reporting on

the various working environments and characteristics of the dif-

ferent animation studios.'

・“Animationwithin Critical Analysis of Visual Media" - a ten-

page feature which ran in Animec on the topic of what position

animation should hold within the discourse of visual critique.5

• Animage， April 1982: The great Future War 198X controversy

this article is a look at the inner turmoil within the animation

industry brought about by the production of the Japanese ani-

mated movie Future Wαr 198X， which simulates an all-out global

“Anime Journalism" -Past and present 155

conflict using nuclear weapons. The story is gritty and realistic，

as is the visual style， from the battles themselves， down to the

depiction of the war strategists meeting and discussing tactics as

well as the lifelike character designs. While this movie was in

production， certain groups called for its cancellation and most of

the staff members boycotted its production， meaning that it had

to be moved elsewhere. The article depicts varying opinions on

the movie， whether it glorifies war or not， whether it is something

that is suitable for children to watch and other such controver-

sies.' The film received a VHS release but it has never been avail-

able on any digital format.

Such features continued wel1 into the 1980s， but around the mid-

point of the decade， a certain decline began to be sensed. The period of

1985-86 saw a turning point of sorts for the industry as a whole， where

a culmination of certain factors finally caught up with it.日ikawa

points out several things that took place at around this time7:

First1y， Yoshiyuki Tomino， director of the highly-influential Gun-

dam， had been directing one entire series every year up unti1 Gundam，

but was convinced to return by the studio， Sunrise， to do a sequel，

which turned out to be Z Gundam. It is significant because the realistic，

gritty storytelling trend of the late 1970s and early 1980s ended at

around this point， with subsequent robot shows being more fantasy and

hero-oriented (such as Mαchine Robo)， and Z Gundαm could be consid-

ered the end point of that line of evolution.

This period in time also saw the boom in Japan-Western co-

productions -something which was rarely picked up on in the maga-

zines， since it was outside of the int巴restsof their main target audience.

However the existence of an influx of overseas capital for shows which

would only run abroad meant that the studios and their staff moved

onto those projects and a staff desertion of sorts occurred within the

domestic-oriented productions. The next evolution in anime after

Mαcross simply did not happen -at least not on television.

There was a notable rise in the number of televised anime series

156 明治大学教養論集通巻490号 (20日・1)

based on Shonen Sunday and Shonen Jump properties. These are

works with established fan bases and enormously widespread reader-

ship: the issue here was that in terms of magazine coverage， rival pub-

lishing firms essentially had to increasingly feature their competitors'

product in order to properly report news on shows currently on the air.

The potential for mature animation for (young) adults， featuring

content not suitable for children， arrived in the form of the straight-to-

video animated works， or OVAs (Original Animation Video). In 1985，

Megazone 23， a feature-length OVA produced by many of the staff of

Macross， sold phenomenally well， establishing this avenue as a viable

replacement for the stagnation of the TV anime market.

One other factor was the release of the Nintendo Family Computer

(th巴“Famicom")and its explosive popularity. The avenues of enter-

tainment were increasing， and were not just limited to TV anime.

Unfortunately， due to all of these factors above， many anime maga-

zines simply folded during this period， including Anim巴c，The Anime

and My Anime， with Out disappearing， then returning， then fading out

once more.

Thus we can pinpoint 1985-86 as the major milestone after which

circumstances change dramatically for the animation industry and in-

evitably， for the publishing industry with which it had established a

symbiotic relationship.

OVAs and the production committees

With the arrival of the OV A， came the establishment of the “pro-

duction committee" system of funding animation works. That is， shows

to be broadcasted on TV would usually deal with an advertising agency

which would bring together a television station and a sponsor to cover

the expenses for production and airing. For the most part， the sponsors

were originally confectionery companies such as Meiji (Tetsuwan

Atom) Glico (Tetsujin 28・gou)， and Calpis (Alps no Shoujo Heidi)

items that children could buy with their own pocket money. Often the

candy would inc1ude a set of stickers or maybe a badge or small toy of


the character in the show. There was a shift from sweets to toys as

robot shows became more popular with boys， and the Chogokin line of

figures was born， thanks to Mαzinger Z and its derivatives， as well as

magical items such as compact mirrors and wands， the likes of which

appear in girl司orientedshows such as Himitsu no Akko-chan. Merchan-

dising was thus central to the success of the show， since it was the main

source of revenue.

As the viewership outgrew the target age for these toys in the early

to mid-1980s， and the focus for hardcore fandom shifted to video as a

viable medium， the production committee system was implemented，

which did away with over-reliance on merchandising at the risk of

story.8 Even if the shows got into production and were not cancelled， it

was c1ear that many of the conditions governing the content were stipu-

lated by the sponsors. These toy companies had enormous influence on

the story and elements of the shows， down to what colour the robots

should be.

The creators were thus presented with an opportunity to expand

into previously deemed no-go areas with the OV A and the production

committee system， where a collection of companies gather together，

such as a publisher， a merchandise manufacturer and such， and “chip

in" an investment that will go toward the funds to produc巴aproduct-

the animated work itself -which should provide returns for all.

Soon OV A-oriented magazines began to hit the shelves. Anime V

and Globian were two such examples.

The short-lived anime magazine Globian was published by Hiro

Media， one of the many startup video companies which commissioned

OV As for animation fans in the mid-to-late 1980s (and also one of the

many which met their end during the crash of the early 1990s). Their

multiple-page spread on California Crisis (which also adorned the

cover) in Globian was not surprising， but some of the other features in

its pages certainly were.

Globian regularly carried artic1es about the consumption patterns

of ]apanese animation in foreign regions， as the publication was mostly

active in 1986 - the year， according to Royal Space Force: Wings of


Honneamise (1987) director， Hiroyuki Yamaga， that the United States

was forming its own fan culture9， which in turn， led to companies com-

ing on board and looking into ]apanese animation for investment po-

tential - this meant that they conveyed to the reader a real-time

experience of how the situation was unfolding in terms of licensing

procedures and distribution. As well as this， the magazine also covered

information， albeit brief1y， on how the fandom was current1y exploding

overseas， with conventions and fanzines being showcased. For the most

part， these artic1es were written by Fred Patten， and translated into

]apanese for the magazine.

Additionally， and somewhat bizarrely， the magazine also carried a

multitude of other artic1es on futuristic vehic1e design， horror B-movies

on video， and life abroad - with one particular striking artic1e on the

social stigma surrounding contraceptive usage in the United States

compared to SwedenlO， and another on Lafcadio Hearnl1. Of course， it is

baffling how this may have anything whatsoever to do with animation

products， but it shows that the editing staff believed that consumers of

OVAs would have an interest in these topics -ones that would have no

place in the pages of the other， more mainstream and younger-targeted

TV anime-oriented magazines such as Animedia. It is also indicative of

a culture of people who are still very much conn巴ctedwith their reader司

ship -a ten-page feature entit1ed “Animation Making" appeared in the

November 1986 issue which gathered a wide array of professionals: crea-

tors such as Go Nagai and Mamoru Oshii， as well as writers and produc-

ers sharing their views in serialized columns about various departments

and new movements within the animation industryl2.

Anime V was more focused on colour spreads highlighting the ex-

citing， upcoming new videos of each month， without much analysis， and

its black and white pages were mostly reserved for hardware trouble-

shooting and how to obtain the optimal viewing experience. With a

variety of formats to choose from， be it Beta， VHS， Laserdisc or even

VHD， and an even wider array of decks to play the discs and cassettes

on， the magazine devoted a large amount of space guiding the begin司

ners in choosing the best system for them， and for the hardcore fanatics，


how to enhance their own set-up. Th巴sesections were illustrated with

comical drawings as well as photographs. However， now that the fac-

tors were set in place for the role of the anime magazine as an incentive

for the readers to invest into anime as a product， rather than being a

spin-off frorri television broadcasts， it was the beginning of the end for

am立lemagazmes.

The shift in role for anime magazines

For a brief period in time， then， a subculture of young persons with

similar interests but different professions collaborated to - perhaps

unintentionally -establish and put in motion the pillars of the publish-

ing arm of the animation industry which would become so vital for its

promotional purposes in later years. They found themselves forming

personal rapports with the creators， who were increasingly being made

up of fans themselves， leading to some candid writing for a while.

These young persons were always at the forefront of technology

and the developing human resources which utilized said t巴chnology-

for instance， the young animators had no qualms against implementing

new techniques which would create industry-wide revolutionary waves

and cause an even bigger eruption in the fandom. lndividuals such as

Ichiro Itano， whose air-battle choreography featuring spaceships and

fighter jets in Gundam， Ideon and Mαcross kept fans stuck to their

screens， were praised as new leaders in the industry， relaying the baton

to a new generation of animators. However， shortly after the success of

Macross and its big-screen adaptation， Ai Oboeteimasuka， a movie pro-

duced almost exclusively by this new generation with the average main

staff member's age in the early twenties， a change began to come about.

“Break Time" was a magazine which would give insights into the

inside workings of the animation studios， and act as more of an educa-

tional resource for anime fans looking to find their way into the indus-

try. Figure 1， a page from the self-described “industry magazine" Break

Time， published in 1984， shows a photograph of a young visitor to an

animation studio with a semi-comica1 speech bubb1e reading “ano...


Figure 1 Page 17 of Break Time， No. 2，

winter 1984. The text on the left reads:“Now， the path to the anime industry. Anime in-dustry career information."

sumimasen" (“excuse me， may 1 come in?"). This is the first page of a

large feature on employment opportunities within the animation indus-

try， and the photograph illustrates a very common trend of the time.

This all paints a view of the animation industry as a growing entity

constantly seeking expansion， with potential talent lying in the user

base. Fans of the previous works would learn of the behind-the-scenes

situations in the pages of the magazines and then visit the studios，

where they would hone their skills with the masters， through which

they would be the ones to bring about the evolved， next generation of

master works.

During this time period of the late 70s to early 80s， the magazine

statf， writers and editors alike were made up of fans of the works， much

like their readership. Likewise， the anime producers were also in-

creasingly fans of animation， and the three groups had a genuine


camaraderie.

“Anime Journalism" today

Break Time magazine， of course， no longer exists. These days， more

complete and heavily-researched industry magazines exist for potential

future creators which are thick and glossy and recommend the proper

steps to reach the top including enrollment in the now widely-varied

creative academies.

Some of the fans-turned-professionals in the industry are noticing

this shift and look back on the ways of decades past somewhat melan-

cholically. In volume 13 of Newtype Ace， published in September 2012，

Macross creators Haruhiko Mikimoto and Shoji Kawamori discuss their

youthful days going into Studio Nue， a science-fiction art and design

agency and eventually being employed by the company during their

university years.

The interviewer for this piece， Souichi Tsuji， a longtime writer of

the same generation now working for Kadokawa， laments that this free-

dom to enter studios and interact with creators is no longer the case: his

phrasing of the production houses being more “open" compared to now

can be interpreted as there being a barrier currently between the fans

(users) and the producers (creators). Kawamori， in turn， rather than

pointing the finger at the division between those previously stated

groups of people， with the flow of information being restricted between

them， blames a lack of eagerness in the younger g巴neration，to which

Mikimoto retorts that though it may seem that way， a prime factor for

that ph巴nomenonmay be the recent proliferation of the senmon-gakkou

training schools that anyone wanting to participate in the industry

would apply to and enter prior to ever visiting a studio uninvited， as

they themselves once did due to the lack of any such institutions. In

that sense， Mikimoto believes that people are “smart" now.'3

This does， however， again highlight a gap between the profession-

als and the aspiring amateurs.

The rift between the production staff， the magazine editors and the


readershipjviewership gradually came about during the 1990s. Free-

lance writer Keisuke Hirota recalls that his earliest pieces on Gundam

during the late 1990s were all commissioned by Bandai Visual， the

holder of the distribution rights for the work. Compared to the time of

Animec， Out， and such magazines， these were the days when Bandai's

ownB・Cluband Newtype were taking over with their glossy， officially-

commissioned approach， functioning as promotional material for the

animation works. This approach then essentially forbade the types of

critique which had been the norm previously， such as the January 1983

issue of The Anime， which had a large feature on Studio Nue， its his-

tory， its members and its most famous works and illustrations. These

days the production committees would rigorously check the text and

visual content of the pages and have final say over what goes in and

what stays out -even if it was something necessary to describe a par-

ticular transition or trend. For example， this particular issue of Out

features various photographs of characters owned by different compa-

nies， the sole link being that Nue worked on all of them. Hirota believes

that these would not appear together in a modern magazine feature，

because some companies would mandate that their character should

not share page space with another company's product. Specific in-

stances have had his own manuscripts returned with many sections

blanked out， and instructions to not mention certain things - most

often not derogatory or in other ways detrimental to the success of the

animation product. Citing real-world influences for particular anima司

tion characters and situations are generally frowned upon， as are con-

nections to other works - even in the case where a work is a direct

sequel or derivative of another. Reasons for omissions may vary， but in

general the production committee would insist that its members be

serviced， and it stands to reason that the more members in the commit-

tee， the more c1ashes that ensue.

As a result，“anime journalism"， or what can be inferred to as such，

is today generally limited in its scope as doing not much more than

promote a certain product -in most cases an upcomingjcurrently air-

ing TV series - and “report" on its developing status through insider

“Anime Journalism" -Past and pr巴sent 163

information gained from staff interviews and the like. In fact， rather

than any form of investigative journalism or critique， the publisher and

the PR department of the production's copyright holder negotiate the

content of the article.

Hirota does however attempt to incorporate real critique and in-

sights in his work within the shuukanshi weekly magazines， the current

affairs publications most1y covering the latest political scandals but

also popular for their photo spreads of bikini-clad women and smaller

cult articles， such as the occult， conspiracies， military hardware fanati-

cism and subculture， within which anime fits in comfortably.

One such feature he planned and wrote was a four-page special on

the future technologies imagined within the fantasy worlds of anima-

tion and how they compare with the development of science in our

actual reality. He goes into detail describing the development of

Honda's bipedal robot Asimo in 1996， the HAL powered suit by Tsukuba

University's Yoshiyuki Sankai and his company， Cyberdyne， also in

1996， Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic's 2011 ongoing space tourism

endeavour and many more such innovations， and plotting them against

the virtual timelines in animated fiction such as the mechanized police

robots of 1998 in Patlabor (produced in 1988， thus set ten years in the

future at the time of release)， 2039's computer-generated idol singer

Sharon Apple from Macross Plus， and the Gamilan Empire's attack on

Earth in 2192 (Yamαto).

As one can see， the potential for incorporating anime and themes

within anime into other contexts and formulating new theories using

anime concepts is rich and most1y untapped - provided one has ade-

quate knowledge of the workings of the world. This is a result of the

distancing of the anime journalism machine from society and its refine-

ment of its own insular system， and as we have seen， the entire phe-

nomenon is lamented by even the individuals in the creative positions

producing the works themselves.


Conclusion

New members of the workforce in the animation industry are com-

ing in from the background of formal training， with little prior experi-

ence of a real studio. Similarly， the newer recruits in the writing staff

of anime magazines are employed and trained to write what the produc-

tion committees dictate， rather than critique and analyze.

Only a handful of professional writers remain who can skillfully

bring knowledge to the table: those like Ryusuke Hikawa， Keisuke

Hirota and Ryouta Fujitsu. Even the numbers of freelance writers have

fallen significantly during the last decade -Hirota describes numerous

factors for this: namely tardiness with deadlines， poor work ethic and

lack of any special knowledge. Hikawa and his group brought some-

thing new to the table with their 1977 Yamato special in Out， thanks to

the knowledge they had gathered through their own efforts. There

appears to be a distinct lack of this sort of knowledge in younger gen-

erations -something which they themselves seek to rectify.

Hikawa and Fujitsu are currently involved in more educational

work such as public lecturing: Hikawa has a course on critique and its

place within the anime world， which runs at lkebukuro Community

College. Meanwhile， Fujitsu regularly conducts a series of study groups

again， open to the public -analyzing the various trends in anime of

the last few decades as well as others taking one seminal work per ses-

sion and breaking it down into components to deconstruct it critically.

It is hoped that they can cultivate a new workforce which will

bring about a revolution in the way information about animation works

past and present flows smoothly and can spread across the public con-

sciousness， breaking free from its current， insular state.

Notes

1 Patten， Fred 2004: Watching Anime， Reading Manga: 25 Years 01 Essays and

Reviews， Stone Bridge Press.

165

Animec Vol. 20， 1981， October.

Animec Vol. 31， 1983， August， 26-31. These pages feature interviews with

th巴Macrossproduction staff such as Noboru Ishiguro， Kenichi Matsuzaki

and Shoji Kawamori conducted and written by the readers of the maga-

zme.

Animec 1984， Octob巴r，27-47.

Animec 1985， May， 71-82.

Animag巴 1982，April， 123-125.

Personal interview conducted on Septemb巴r11， 2012.

Here I refer to the numerous works of animation which had been cancelled

du巴toa lack of support from the sponsors after merchandise did not me巴t

projected sales. While the viewership was not bad， robot shows Gundam

and Layzner were both axed before their stories wer巴 properlyconc1uded.

Incid巴ntally，Animec showed a staunch support for both Gundam and

Layzner， offering many exc1usive interviews with the staff and providing

discussions and analyses over many issues. Thematically， these shows

have been lauded by critics since.

アクロス編集室 AcrossHensyuushitsu 1995:皆家康忍の作り方TheMaking

of World Products， Parco Ltd.， 80.

10 Globian， 1986， August， Hiro Media， 84-85.

11 Ibid， 82-83.

12 Globian， 1986， Novemb巴r，Hiro Media， 22-31

13 Tsuji， Souichi 2012: Macross 30th Anniversary Project Di・scussion:Shoji

Kawamori and Haruhiko Mikimoto， Gekkan Newtype Ace， Vol. 13: 389.

“Anime Journalism" -Past and present

2

3

刈

qFhunhU

巧

t

n

凸

9

商学部特任講師)(リベラ・ルスカ，レナト

Documents

Anime J ournalism -Past and present · Gakken Publish-ing and Tokuma Shoten. respectively. Every ... of merchandise from Yamato and another pictorially chronicI ing the stages of